>On 2002-02-19 3:01, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> o Does the datatyping proposal meet your
>>> needs and the needs of your users?
>>> (Who are they?) (What is missing?)
>>
>...
>> resolving S-B is needed
>
>I think that the union treatment of rdfs:drange does this nicely.
I fail to see how.
>Consider the following example, including all *four* datatyping
>idioms (inline, value triple, doublet, and datatype triple):
>
> ppp rdfs:drange xsd:integer .
> aaa ppp "10" .
> bbb ppp _:1 .
> _:1 rdfs:dlex "10" .
> ccc ppp _:2 .
> _:2 rdfs:dlex "10" .
> _:2 rdfs:dtype xsd:integer .
> eee ppp _:3 .
> _:3 xsd:integer "10" .
>
>All of the above idioms define the pairing ("10",xsd:integer) which
>unambiguously denotes the integer value 'ten'.
But Dan C. doesn't want the second triple to say that. He wants it to
say that the ppp value of aaa is the string '10', regardless of
datatyping. We have established this point now many times. You keep
trying to fix something that isn't broken.
>The property value of ppp is either a member of the lexical space
>(literal) or member of the value space (bNode) and the graph
>syntax makes it crystal clear which partition of the union
? unions aren't partitioned, that is precisely the problem. A union
is just a big set that contains everything in all the other sets.
Think of mixing two colors of sand. So if the datatype class is this
union, then a range statement refers to the entire union, which
hardly restricts the datatyping at all. Also, some datatypes (eg some
date formatting) may have value spaces which overlap lexical spaces
of others, which would produce even more confusion when unions were
formed.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
phayes@ai.uwf.eduhttp://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes